Lean Body Mass Maintenance and Metabolic Rate Slowdown – Q&A

Question: I am a little confused when it comes to metabolic slowdown. The reason for my confusion is that as far as I can figure, if my LBM remains approximately the same throughout the diet, then my energy expenditure should also remain basically the same. Granted, maintaining LBM is difficult but for arguments sake let’s assume that LBM is maintained within a +/- 5% range. So for an individual with 150lbs of LBM that amounts to 7.5lbs. My assertion(correct or not) is that metabolic slowdown cannot occur beyond what that 7.5lbs of LBM used in the first place?

Is this a faulty assumption? I’ve read on many a website that the body goes into “starvation mode”, however that argument doesn’t sit well with me. Either the body requires X amount of energy to function, or it doesn’t. I think “starvation mode” might simply be reduced activity in general, so for a relatively insane individual (read:athlete) who is willing to push hard on a restrictive diet, metabolic slowdown shouldn’t be an issue?

Answer: I suspect that some of this comes down to an issue of semantics (you sort of get to part of what I’m going to talk about in your second paragraph) but some of it doesn’t. The short answer to your question is that your assumption isn’t entirely correct; even with 100% maintenance of lean body mass (LBM) there can still be some metabolic slowdown. Now here’s the longer answer.

First and foremost, we need to define some terms and what’s meant by metabolic rate since I suspect that’s part of where some of the confusion is coming from. On a daily basis, an individual’s total daily energy expenditure is given by three components, which I’ve discussed in detail in Metabolic Rate Overview. They are

Where TEA has now been divided into two distinct components: the thermic effect of exercise and non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). The distinction being that the first is calories burned during formal exercise and the second, NEAT, is the calories burned during activities such as daily moving around, fidgeting, moving from sitting to standing, etc. I discussed the potentially major impact of NEAT in a recent research review on Role of Nonexercise Activity Thermogenesis in Resistance to Fat Gain in Humans.

Now, each of the above is determined by various factors including body composition, diet, etc. And all of them are affected by dieting and the loss of body mass. Studies have repeatedly shown that individuals who have been dieted down to a given weight will have a lower than predicted metabolic rate compared to someone who didn’t diet to that weight. That is, someone who ‘naturally’ weighs 200 pounds will have a higher total energy expenditure than someone who dieted down to 200 pounds.

So what’s causing this reduction in total energy expenditure. A majority of the ‘metabolic slowdown’ that occurs is due simply to the loss of body mass. Because larger bodies burn more calories (both at rest and during activities) and smaller bodies burn less.

But that’s not the only cause of metabolic slowdown here. There is also an adaptive component of metabolic rate slowdown that is mediated by changes in hormones: leptin, insulin, thyroid, catecholamines. As these change (decrease) on a diet, you find that tissues burn fewer calories per unit mass. I’d mention that not all studies find this, about half do and half don’t. That is, your assumption that a given body composition always burns the identical number of calories on a day to day basis isn’t entirely correct.

Of course, an important question is how much of a change this amounts to. During active weight loss, the impact is relatively greater (because hormones tend to be more greatly affected); at weight maintenance (once a person has stabilized), the impact isn’t huge. In some studies of the post-obese (folks who have been dieted down and maintained at that weight) show a relatively modest 5% or so reduction in RMR. The effect exists but is not massive; it’s also highly variable, with people showing relatively more or less of an effect.

There is also evidence that individuals move around less when they lose/are losing weight. As James Krieger recently wrote on his Weightology.net website, it looks like changes in activity (especially NEAT) are the far larger contribution to the reduction in overall energy expenditure on a day to day basis; the number of calories burned in that activity also appear to be reduced due to improved muscular efficiency.

In that study, decreases in RMR were about 150 calories per day but reductions in activity expenditure were up in the 300 calorie plus range with the total effect being over 400 calories. This is likely why daily activity has such a profound impact on weight maintenance as I discussed in Exercise and Weight/Fat Loss Part 2: since the body is ‘automatically’ decreasing activity energy expenditure, you have to make up for it.

So basically you’re both correct and incorrect. The greatest impact on total daily energy expenditure certainly appears to be due to decreased spontaneous activity during the day. However, there is also an added component of a reduction in resting energy expenditure due to changes in RMR, even with complete maintenance of lean body mass. Some of this is due to simply being smaller, some of it is an adaptive reduction in metabolic rate due to shifting hormone levels (which, again, not all studies find).

And semi-tangentially, a long while back I had written an article as a background primer to something I had intended to write about alcohol. Well, now I don’t have to since Martin Berkhan over at Leangains.com has written it. In his article The Truth about Alcohol, Fat Loss and Muscle Gain he pretty much covers everything you could ever want to know about the topic.

Comments

Comments

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I could have been more specific in that I was wondering about the RMR, though you figured that out 🙂
I can live with a 5% decrease, as long as its not 30-40%. Thanks yet again 🙂

enrique on
July 30th, 2010 4:40 pm

As always, great article, and great information.

I’ve always asked to myself if it’s true this kind of “metabolic slowdown” when you for example put an overweighted 200lb male, dieting to 160lb, in a restrictive calorie diet of 1200-1600cal for weeks and weeks. His metabolism slows down, adapting to this calorie intake?

regards!

Ralph Stimson on
July 30th, 2010 4:42 pm

Lyle,

Regarding the comment, “the number of calories burned in that activity also appear to be reduced due to improved muscular efficiency.” Is this simply the case with any activity performed regularly over time? And would any drop on account of improved muscular efficiency be particularly noteworthy, or would it always pale in comparison to any of the drops seen from actual reductions in daily activity? I suppose what I am asking is if any reduced caloric expenditure during a given daily activity on account of improved muscular efficiency would/could ever be significant in and of itself, or if it is simply a compounding factor on top of the hit imposed by actual reductions in activity.

Pete Duboise on
July 30th, 2010 4:50 pm

Hi, Lyle.

Do you think that it is possible to get folks to consciously consider adding more daily walking, perhaps with added weight via a weight vest, to combat any tendency toward a decrease in NEAT when dieting, or do you think this may be overly optimistic in many cases? Clearly if there is a subconscious tendency toward reduced spontaneous activity, this may be difficult to override at first, but it would seem like a low activity coupled with “sneaking back on” a few extra pounds wouldn’t tax the body like crazy, and, at the very least, might help to milk as much as possible out of an activity like walking.

Andy on
July 6th, 2011 3:42 pm

Hi, great site and great topic.

This is an old thread, but here goes.

I worry about the long-term negative effects of trying to maintain my weight below setpoint. For the past 10 years I’ve varied between about 200 and 170. Looking back, I lose the weight fast but have a lot of trouble keeping it off (very old story, I know). I think I’m a pretty well-educated dieter/exerciser when I’m “on the wagon”: controlled moderate eating, weight lifting and some endurance, etc. I am 5’8″ and fairly muscular, but certainly overweight/obese at 200.

I’m now back to about 175 and thinking hard about maintenance. This time, I think it’s different. But I do wonder: should I even try? Let me try to lay out the arguments/conjecture. I’m not seriously thinking of not trying to lose fat, but this issue does worry me.

1. As this article says, there is a lot of evidence that the hormonal/physiological resonponses to weight/fat reduction are permanent (lower testosterone, less non-exercise activity, etc.). To be more precise, if I want to stay at 170, I will have to have a permanent reduction in my diet-and-exercise energy balance (energy in – exercise), probably more than accounted for by the 15 percent weight drop. And while I haven’t seen anything quite on point, I guess my testosterone might be lower and my stress hormones higher (forever!).

2. As this article says, this makes maintenance difficult. That’s not my concern here. Rather, does this make the goal unwise? I worry, does this mean that my body will always be stressed? Will my lower metabolism and my body’s effort to save energy not mean that I will be more listless? Perhaps my brain will be using less energy all the time too, which doesn’t seem like a good thing.

3. To bring in another way of looking at it, I gather that there is lots of (arguably surprising) evidence that large weight loss is associated with less, not more, longevity, even in studies that attempt to control for voluntary vs involuntary weight loss etc. (Of course, I can still exercise and gain benefits from that whether I lose weight with associted dietary control or not). Could “fact” 1 above be the explanation? I have not seen anything on this idea, but maybe the reason weight/fat loss is not associated with better longevity outcomes is exactly the (negative) long-term metabolic response.